You know - the whole "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
Posted on 02/22/2008 4:36:57 PM PST by Daffynition
Hillary Clinton just raised her campaign pledge for universal health care to the level of a new Constitutional right, telling a crowd in De Pere, Wis., today that the way things stand in America it’s OK to discriminate against the sick.
It’s actually an idea being floated by Wisconsin Rep. Steve Kagen, a doctor who introduced Clinton here at St. Norbert’s College. (She gave him credit.)
But Hillary embraced it wholly, and made it her own.
“Under our Constitution, no one is supposed to be discriminated against. That’s part of our values, that’s our law in America. Except sick people can be discriminated against,” she said, recouting Kagen’s argument, which he plans to try and turn into legislation.
“When you’re sick you can lose your insurance; when you’re sick, you can be charged so much more that you can’t pay for it,” before segueing into her own familiar litany of people’s health care tragedies, and apparently embracing Kagen’s concept.
“We have to start asking ourselves, ‘Do we want to enshrine discrimination in our health care system, the one area where of our lives where we’re most vulnerable?’” Clinton told the crowd.
“The Constitution says you can’t discriminate against somebody because of what color they are or what religion they are,” she went on. “Why is it OK to discriminate against somebody who is born with a heart defect, or who is diagnosed with prostate cancer?
“I think it’s time we say, ‘We’re not going to let the health insurance industry say who lives and who dies.and who gets health care in this country,” she concluded to applause that drowned out her final words.
Rep. Kagen, it seems, is onto something in his district around Green Bay.depereA021808.jpg For her part, Clinton has talked about health care being a moral right, but we can’t recall her ever elevating it to the Constitutional level before. We’re betting we hear more of this from her.
You know - the whole "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
Has anyone told the idiot hillary that the Wisconsin vote is done?
What an inept campaign.
Maybe the jerks can go to Michigan next and fight for union 8 hour workshifts.
Liberals will no doubt find this right in the Constitution’s “Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness” clause. After all, if you don’t receive government provided health-care, you probably won’t live and you sure can’t pursue happiness if you’re too sick to get out of bed.
We can all agree with Ron Paul on THIS (MUST-READ):
Not Yours To Give
Col. David Crockett
US Representative from Tennessee
http://www.house.gov/paul/nytg.htm
Of course it is...
So is owning a house...but where does it say the government has to pay for it?
“Our citizens have wisely formed themselves into one nation as to others and several States as among themselves. To the united nation belong our external and mutual relations; to each State, severally, the care of our persons, our property, our reputation and religious freedom.”
— Thomas Jefferson: To Rhode Island Assembly, 1801. ME 10:262
http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1050.htm
thanks, bfl
Picture courtesy of unixfox. All rights reserved. Copyright MMVII. Any use of the pictures descriptions or accounts of this ping without the express written consent of unixfox, Eric Blair, or Major League Baseball is strictly prohibited. Some restrictions apply. Ping not available in all states. For erections lasting longer than four hours, call the Guiness Book of World Records. Use only as directed.
We the People Sheeple of the United States Nanny State, in Order to form a more perfect Union Socialist Utopia, establish Justice Socially engineer a country of non smoking, physically fit, tea totallers, insure domestic Tranquility Smoking bans in bars, limits on unhealthy food and social drinking, provide for the common defense Universal Healthcare, promote the general Welfare health of the population whether they like it or not, in order to save above mentioned Universal Healthcare entitlement program from bankruptcy, and secure the Blessings of Liberty Dependency to ourselves progressive liberals and our Posterity Hitler Youth who we brainwash through public school education, do ordain decree and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. Nanny State of Liberals.
What about the stoopid?
This is very consistent with left wing socialist and collectivist ideology.
They don’t want equality of OPPORTUNITY. They want equality of OUTCOMES.
Based on that logic, why shouldn’t the Gubmint do something about the fact that I am not a 6’9” 345 lb guy with quick feet who can make a fortune in the NFL as a left tackle?
Exactly. If Heller goes the way I want it to, then the 2nd Amendment will mean that the govt is going to buy me an M-4.
“Nothing that requires the effort or labor of another can be a right.”
That should be a tagline.
“I’m at a loss why you state this way. You have it backwards. The Constitution again does NOT state our rights. It states limits of government. So no rights were left out.
Another point is that the Constitution outlines limits on government to protect our individual rights. Hillary is misdefining “rights” as the right of individuals to demand government to pay their bills. This is not covered by the Constitution. Lots of people simply don’t know what the Constitution is.”
I agree with you. I know the Constitution does not state our rights as. The Constitution tells the govt what it may ,must, and may not do. That is why I’m confused when some people say that a right does not exist because it’s not in the Constitution. Now, some rights are listed in the Bill of Rights but not all of them as noted when you read the 9th amendment. I’m not arguing for Hillary’s point at all. I’m merely wondering how something is determined to be a right and not merely a privelege.
Here's a book on their accomplishments regarding housing
America’s Trillion-Dollar Housing Mistake: The Failure of American Housing Policy
(October 2003 / Urban Affairs, Housing Policy)
by Howard Husock
Howard Husock explains how, as with so many anti-poverty efforts, low-income housing programs have harmed those they were meant to help while causing grave collateral damage to cities and their citizens. [snip]“This brief book is a gem. Howard Husock provides us with an incisive and devastating analysis of a failed social experiment—the use of massive amounts of public funds to provide better housing for the poor. However benign the intentions of housing reformers, he demonstrates, the costly programs they created did more harm than good. A must-read for anyone interested in public policy issues today.”
My note: See also:
Public housing in the United States and Canada
Cabrini Green
Which is better, one who plagiarizes valid concepts or one who wishes up absurd concepts at a whim?
I agree!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.